A Radiometer Is Demonstrating a Process of Acceleration 

by

Laurence (Lance) Thompson

The premise of my paper is the high to low pressure gradients created in a radiometer can be applied in other ways to also apply a net force. In a radiometer the low pressure side represents a de-energizing of the rarefied gas molecules which, with the input of energy, can be reused time and again. It is in this no release of exhaust gas in the transfer of momentum which I am most interested in demonstrating. 

A casual observer may think the reflection of energy from the reflective side of the radiometer vanes is imparting momentum to the vanes. This is almost not the case. It is  the energizing of the rarefied gas molecules on the carbon black side of the vanes which imparts momentum into the vanes via slip effects on the vane edges. 

In a radiometer an internal force is taking place in causing an acceleration of the vanes. I feel this force could be directed in other ways to cause an acceleration of a body. In 1879 J. Clerk and O. Reynolds found a lateral motion of the heated, energized gas molecules over the non-reflective side of the vane results in the energized gas molecules slipping obliquely over the edges, exerting a net force. These effects are described as slip effects and thermo molecular. (1) 

In a well balanced radiometer the vanes can reach a velocity of 2000 to 3000 rpm. The small mass of the gas molecules compared to the much larger vanes and harness would reach on a molecular level substantially higher velocities. On the level at which it operates these mechanical properties look efficient in converting energy to momentum.  (And this conversion could approach the reciprocal of the small amount of force inputted by light striking the reflective side of the vanes.)

On the wider spacing of the rarefied gas molecules together with the small mass of the individuals molecules such molecules could be acting individually over short time intervals on the carbon black surface and as individual molecules would not be able to overcome the large inertia of the vanes and harness. This would be in contrast to the rarefied gas molecules then acting as a unit in the slip effects which impart momentum to the vanes.

Significant Notes

I feel it is this aspect of Newtonian physics, small individual molecular masses acting individually on a large mass, which opens the following testing. This is the demonstration of the unique, special case properties of this form of acceleration.

In the rarefied gas reactions if the partial vacuum is decreased toward a full atmosphere the crowding effect of the gas molecules prevent slip effects. In a complete vacuum slip effects do not take place as there are no gas molecules. In very cold temperatures slip effects also do not function. And in high temperatures slip effects could be overwhelmed due to the breakdown of the force generating surface. Within these parameters I feel a radiometer represents an internal self contained force generating environment (except for the input of energy).

Testing

I feel the rotation of the vanes is in the centrifugal design and  is the result of the rarefied gas reactions (i.e. the rotation itself would not contribute to the rarefied gas reactions). In support of this point would be William Crookes' original observations. Before inventing the radiometer in 1875, Crookes found on weighing objects in a partial vacuum the rarefied gas reactions initially took place on particles which could be affected in different directions. In other words the reactions were not due to random Brownian motion or to centrifugal forces. (2) 

The testing is to be at room temperature with Argon gas (as in a radiometer) and at a similar torr pressure. The confirmation of the non-rotational nature of the force applied is first necessary before demonstrating the properties of this form of acceleration. 

1. The testing is to take place in a closed cylinder of a strong pressure resistant transparent material and of a similar diameter as a radiometer. On one end the cylinder is caped and sealed. Yet with a valve to admit different gases and to then extract the gas to a similar torr partial radiometer vacuum.

2. The other end of the cylinder is also caped, but with an atmospheric pressure sealing gasket when under vacuum. Two small external clamps can be used so this cap can be readily removed when a vacuum is not present. This cap is to also have a valve so that when different gases are admitted this valve can be opened to flush the system of previous gases. Both valves are to be set near the edges of the end caps. 

In the testing other gases (and combinations) could also be tested for effectiveness such Helium, Nitrogen, and Carbon Dioxide  (which are readily available).

3. The caps on the interior and in the center are to have a 1 1/2" long holder of  a hard, frictionless material permanently glued in place. This is to serve as the holder  for an interior supporting rod with its attached surfaces. The supporting rod is to fit within the these end holders and is to have 1 inch of free play to move within its holders.

4. The caped cylinder could be approximately 10 inches in length.  The vanes and harness from 5 radiometers can be extracted by carefully breaking the sealing tube of the radiometers and then in a closed safety bag breaking the glass bulb, being careful  to not disturb the carbon black surfaces. The glass bearing portion of the harness is to be removed and through this opening the 5 harnesses are to be permanently affixed on a light weight rod on a spacing of about 1 1/2 inches, 

Before the vanes and harness are attached carefully bend the vanes out to be almost perpendicular to the mounting rod - yet taking care to leave sufficient space from the adjacent vanes on the harnesses for slip effects - say 1/4 to 1/2 inch. 

(If necessary it may be necessary to redesign the vanes. I am hoping to avoid this so as to keep the cost to a minimum. However I can visualize a circular “plate” with interior openings for slip effects while slip effects continue taking place around the circumference. This would likely increase the force/power generative surface area and likely also the differential between the high and low pressure sides.)

5. The caped cylinder, now a "test vehicle" can be mounted on low friction wheels or  mounted on skate like skids on a glass surface which is lightly oiled to further reduce friction and any possible traction to the wheels. (No - I have not lost my physics here. I am going to use this frictionless surface to demonstrate an unique property of this composite form of acceleration.)

6. The caped cylinder can now be "loaded" with Argon (or after this initial confirmation with Carbon Dioxide). The cylinder is braked so  the cylinder can not move. The central rod now put in its end holders and inserted fully into the holder which is opposite to its predicted direction of travel. The partial vacuum now extracted to a similar torr as the radiometer. Two or three light energy sources along the sides are next turned on with the light projected on to the carbon black side of the vanes now fixed upon the rod. The movement of the rod within its braked cylinder is now recorded.

With a positive confirmation of the non rotational nature of the slip effects and before proceeded to the final confirmation, I would like to first give the following discussion.

Discussion and Predictions

In a narrow sense the following is not the internal acceleration of a body as the force/power is generated external to the surfaces. However my predicted properties could be those from a force acting internally within a body. Is this  a violation of Newton's physics?  In reply, I feel the answer to this question would need to fully await the testing since if his physics would be violated none of this would be possible. For myself in exploring this, it is the accelerative process taking place in a radiometer which is the connection to different aspects of his physics - as if the process itself is the "graph line" connecting "the Newtonian parts". However, if one were to try to graph the high and low molecular velocities and then the conversion to macro momentum such a graph line could be "ragged" to the point of being broken. Yet, in contrast the resulting net accelerative force when graphed would, except possibly for an initial "rocky" beginning, be for a body under acceleration, first with a steep upward curve and then a modulated graph line approaching a steady state with the steady input of energy. 

The following testing, in treating the reactions in a radiometer as a physical process, is predicted to show properties which could appear as counter to his physics. Yet I feel this accelerative process could be one encompassing Newton’s physics.  (And though not in the immediate scope of my paper, I am prepared to show at a basic level how this could be so. Hint - it follows from my observing a bouncing ball and its relation to an immoveable mass.)

I feel in the likely initial confirmation of point 6 above, the rod with its force/power generating surfaces will be moved toward the opposite end to take up the 1 inch of free play.  This confirming that slip effects are operative in a non rotational setting as the force/power in contrast to the rotating vanes of a radiometer, is now directed to the rod and then to the "test vehicle" itself.

After this initial confirmation, the rod with attached surfaces is reset back in its holder so the 1" free play is again in place. Only this time the mass of the rod and attached surfaces are to use the 1" free play as a small ram to help overcome the inertia of the much larger mass of the cylinder. 

(Note: if necessary some additional weight could likely be added to the rod to accomplish this ramming purpose. This could be equivalent to a priming action. Once the inertia of the larger mass is overcome it would then take a smaller force to keep the "test vehicle" in motion. Note: applying  sufficient energy to the surfaces is what puts this process in motion. Thus, if necessary, a high oblique angle with a strong energy source could be used on a closer spacing by adding additional surfaces.

The closed cylinder, now a "test vehicle" is  unblocked and is now free to be propelled with the application of energy upon the frictionless surface upon which it rests. 

(The following is hypothetical because an "ad hoc" approach is best used to first address the complexity of the rarefied gases and the slip effects.) 

Although the weight of the closed cylinder is substantial, say 1000 times the approximately 0.4gm weight of the vanes and one radiometer harness, I feel the propulsion of the large mass could be possible because of the following. 

1. A small force exerted over time can move a much larger mass. (A positive)

2. The radiometer vanes can rotate, spin, up to 3000rpm. Say using 1000rpm and an average distance of travel of the mass of 3 inches per each revolution this would translate into 3000 inches/minute or 250 feet per minute. In a "test vehicle" of 1000 times mass this could translate into a forward movement of  3 inches/minute - not likely to overcome the "test vehicle's" inertia. (A negative)

3. The 5 vanes harnesses now fixed to the rod could increase by a factor of 5 the above figure - still not likely to overcome the inertia of a much larger mass.  (A "wash")

4. The priming action as the free play is taken up and the force/power generated over the surfaces then continues to be applied. (A positive)

5. Yet, there is more. The light energy source will be directed fully upon all four vanes of each attached harness in contrast to say 1/4 of the time interval of the rotating vanes of a radiometer, a potentially 4 times the force/power generated in contrast to the radiometer vanes. (A positive) 

6. A weak light source can cause the radiometer vanes to spin. In the testing a stronger light source can be used, (although too strong a light/energy source could overwhelm the system).  However I feel say a 10 times increase in force/power could be generated with a stronger light source. Yet in the testing, in addition, more surface area would also be available to take advantage of the increased light energy source as compared to the radiometer spinning vanes. (A positive)

7. A "wild card" - which leaves me  curious as to how this could play out in the  testing. In the radiometer a spin rate of 1000 to 3000rpms is in effect also moving the de-energized gas molecules - at this point in the energy/force cycle a dead weight. In the testing any "frictional" loss due to this movement of dead weight might instead be captured in the sense that it is not necessary to move this dead weight. Instead any frictional loss here might be taken back to be directed to overcoming the inertia of the test vehicle itself. (Likely a positive)

8. The drag of the external air pressure. The relative low velocity of the "test vehicle" would help minimize this external atmospheric friction. (Yet, overall a negative)

9. A possibility that other ways might also be found to increase the force/power generated. (A neutral to a positive at this point.)

(Note: it might also be possible to generate heating of the surfaces on a close spacing through electricity or microwaves.)

Based on a rudimentary summation (perhaps the above is an example of "fuzzy logic") I am willing to predict  a substantially larger mass, a "test vehicle", could be propelled in the open air and under a full external atmosphere. (3)

Other  notes. 

 A. In the radiometer and in the testing once the rarefied gas molecules impart momentum, the gas molecules in losing energy, would become cooled. I feel this cooling could represent the “exhaust” side of a "simple" engine. This would be similar to a conventional engine as once the energy is imparted into momentum, the exhaust is cooled, the energy transferred to macro momentum. 

B. A simple way to view the testing and my following predictions is the reason this would work with a lightweight  "test vehicle" is because the high pressure gradient can now "push" the entire "test vehicle" toward the low pressure gradient  on the opposite side of the fixed surfaces. 

A note for the record - it may be possible to incorporate the above into a complimentary "toy" to the radiometer. Affixed almost like a paddle wheel with force/power generating surfaces inside a transparent closed cylinder. But as the "paddle wheel" is now attached, fixed, the force would instead be directed along the width of the closed cylinder causing the cylinder to roll upon a smooth surface.

(If sufficient force/power could be generated, such a demonstration could take place in a 101 physics class room as the professor is saying the internal propulsion of a body is "not possible". Again, a simplified explanation is the closed cylinder with its own internal force generating environment would continually roll forward, with the continued input of energy, toward its low pressure gradient.)

C. Excessive mass inertia of the test vehicle would result in wasted heating of the surfaces without energy being inputted into macro momentum.  In other words the "test vehicle" would run cooler when it is in motion and without excessive inertia. This could be similar to a conventional engine which if at the same rpm when braked could then overheat and blow a head gasket. (In a sense the properties of conventional engines would in the testing be reduced to near a molecular level.)

Predicted Properties

I feel the following seemingly "science fiction" properties could be demonstrated on applying energy on the non-reflective surfaces of the caped cylinder, the test “vehicle”. 

1. As in the force directed by slip effects to the edges of the radiometer vanes to overcome inertia, this test could likewise demonstrate it could be possible to direct a net force to the surfaces of the "test vehicle”, to overcome inertia. A property of this form of acceleration is that the inertia of a mass could be overcome from a force generated from within a body. (I have previously explained why this possibility would not be counter to Newton’s physics.)

2. Such a form of propulsion  would require no surfaces exterior to the “vehicle” itself for traction. In this test the rarefied gases slipping obliquely over the interior surface edges impart momentum. In this property of this form of acceleration the body itself would become through its own inertia the base for the application of a net accelerative force. 

(This is why I suggested an almost frictionless surface be used for the "test vehicle" and the vehicle be mounted on low friction wheels or low friction skids. In this property external traction is not a requirement for propulsion. I also note another example of a form of propulsion which could be propelled over a frictionless surface would be that of  rocket propulsion. In effect what is emerging for me in this is a form of acceleration which seems to combine the properties of both rocket propulsion and that of conventional engines.) 

3. The transfer of momentum would be from near a molecular level from the rarefied gases. There would be no readily visible moving parts, except the test “vehicle” itself. In effect, in reducing the net force generated to close to the molecular level, the test "vehicle" would become its own engine and its own drive train. And the "vehicle" would be both the "piston and cylinder" as the "vehicle" itself would be the recipient of the net force generated. 

4. In this test, as in the radiometer, the input of energy would continue to recharge and to reuse the rarefied gases to exert a net force on the surfaces of the  "test vehicle". Because the “exhaust gas”, the cooled molecules in transferring momentum, is then recharged and reused,  an external exhaust gas is not discharged.  In the transfer of momentum, it is the cooled  gas molecules such as carbon dioxide molecules which are now trapped  to be reused.

Although I do not know if  sufficient force might be developed for practical applications, I also note the advances in small scale physics. I would like to see these properties now demonstrated as possible and in the "tool bag" of physics.  (end)